Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Ratan Lall Adukia And Ors. on 17 June, 1987

Nesamony Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Kochammal (Minor) Rep. By Father And ... on 22 October, 1991

Again, in Union of India v. Ratan Lal 1988 ACJ 992, it had been held that the scope of Section 110 of the Act cannot be circumscribed by a narrow interpretation and that the expression "damage to property" has a very wide amplitude to include future property representing even the earnings which the owner of the damaged vehicle would have earned, if the vehicle had not been damaged.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Leelavathi Natesan vs Khaja Mohideen And Ors. on 5 October, 1990

On the other hand learned Counsel for the appellant drew attention to the decision in Union of India v. Ratan Lal 1988 ACJ 992, to contend that a narrow interpretation of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not called for and damage would include loss of earnings which would have been earned by the owner of the vehicle but for the accident and such a claim cannot be negatived. In the view taken earlier that the appellant had parted away with all her rights to claim compensation from any person whomsoever it may be in favour of the fourth respondent under the terms of Exhibit D-2 dated 30.1.1982 and had constituted the fourth respondent as the subrogee of all her rights, it is unnecessary to go into this aspect of the matter. Thus on a due consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is seen that the Tribunal was quite right in rejecting the claim petition filed by the appellant and that no case is made out to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs of the third respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1